Re: Partitioning / Clustering

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering
Date: 2005-05-11 04:44:06
Message-ID: 200505102144.07254.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Neil,

> Sure, but that hardly makes it not "usable". Considering the price of
> RAM these days, having enough RAM to hold the database (distributed over
> the entire cluster) is perfectly acceptable for quite a few people.

The other problem, as I was told it at OSCON, was that these were not
high-availability clusters; it's impossible to add a server to an existing
cluster, and a server going down is liable to take the whole cluster down.
Mind you, I've not tried that aspect of it myself; once I saw the ram-only
rule, we switched to something else.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-05-11 04:53:05 Re: Prefetch
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-11 04:39:22 Re: Partitioning / Clustering